[bubble_talk]

Given that Microsoft now owns GitHub, I would add them into this list too.

Also, perhaps some of the focus should also shift towards preventing such acquisitions (Google + YouTube, Facebook + WhatsApp), which the tech community at large can immediately identify as a potential monopoly threat. A simplistic way to do this would be to look at how much the company pays for the acquisition, but I am sure others here can come up with better metrics.

Also, Facebook should not be clubbed with the other companies in this list. What they are doing isn't some poorly defined "tech monopoly consolidation". They are just a completely fraudulent company headed by someone who should probably not be running any company. Tim Cook's point may have been self-serving, but he was absolutely right when he said that "if I were Facebook, I would not be in this situation".

[cameronbrown]

No, GitHub doesn't give Microsoft any market control. Git is an open protocol inherently.

[save_ferris]

I've worked for 7 software companies in my career. Every single one of them used Github, and I don't believe my experience was unusual in this regard.

Your argument implies that all Github does is service the Git protocol, but we all know it does so much more than that. From a cloud-based source control standpoint, Microsoft absolutely gained market control. An open protocol != cloud-based SAAS company.

[cameronbrown]

GitHub doesn't do anything but centralise a bunch of services other companies (including Microsoft) have SaaS for. There's literally hundreds of git hosting platforms, kaban boards, issue trackers, CI services, code search tools out there.. All GitHub does is bring it together. It does not really have any kind of lock-in.

[blub]

It does have lock-in because almost everyone is on GitHub and if they move they lose access to that community.

e.: people mentioning "Github profiles" when discussing preparing for interviews.